W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

[MTF] Minutes of 10/22 meeting

From: Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:34:03 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE5572B41.65CD0E4F-ON87256C5A.0075DE91@us.ibm.com>

Management Task Force meeting minutes:

Action items:
1.    HK:post minutes of other meetings
2.    HK:Ask Mark Potts to send IPR declaration
3.    HK:Heather would like to propose a MTF f2f Nov 12 noon-5. Perhaps
morning of Nov 13 as well. If there's enough interest
I will reserve a room at a hotel or discuss a room with our hosts.
4.    YinLing: to send ISO status statandard fields
5.    Hao:Add in Haos status description information

      Visibility of management ifcs to business users

Agenda Friday 10/25 (we will continue twice weekley till the W3C F2F):
1.    finish Haos document: events and event rate based metrics
2.    Start Web Service Abstract data discussion from draft.


MTF meeting 10/22/02

Attendees: Heather Kreger - IBM, Hao He - Thomson, Igor Sedukh - CA,
Yin-Ling Husband - HP

1.    Hao’s document comments
      ·     can’t assign namespace yet, keep for concretization later
      ·     Discovery section, in here discovery has already been done (URI
is known).
2.    Discovery conversation:
      ·     discover management ports just like other service ports are
      ·     should recommend standardization of a taxonomy to be able to
find ‘management’ ports
      ·     Do we need to tag custom management portTypes with
      ·     If they are compliant to standard, then it will be derived from
standard tns.
      ·     ? Service URI to management URI construction? Like
http://serviceuri/wsdl? Not sure this is viable. WSDL group defines
relationship between service and service definition
      ·     Need to define the association between the management
service/port/portTypes and the managed service/port/portTypes. Should be
able to transverse from management one to manage. Do we also need to be
able to traverse from managed to management? Probably not. ACLs could be
used to keep biz from using mgmt interfaces… is this enough? Is it bad to
be able to know what the mgmt interface is
      ·     Also secondary discovery from a managed service environment to
the services it manages and from registry to services registered. Will
service environment also list management services and ports?
3.    Operations and states
      ·     Really means status field values – not ‘state’ as in grid
services version of state (where its all service data).
      ·     We need to use standard ‘status’ values from ISO
      ·     Hao proposes that the ‘status’ field has its own URL/URI and do
get to retrieve status and post to get status. (and same goes for all
metrics) . Comments: YL: this is very fine grained, usually services are
courser grained. HK: This really should be portTypes in WSDL with bindings
to GET/POST for each data/operation. IS: Need to start more abstractly at
operation level. HH: GET/POST is more abstract. We will leave these
operations out till we concretize and then it will be one of the bindings.
In the meantime we should keep this HTTP binding in mind.

Heather Kreger
Web Services Lead Architect
STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 17:34:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:42 UTC